I've been "officially atheist" since October, but I'm pretty "religious" about it - in that an atheist knows the right thing to do. All of these posts I write are becoming "additional clarity" for a future rendition of Chaotic Determinism - merely a philosophy, but a way of thinking where thinking of Gaia becomes second nature.

As Paul said, we are all called to do the best we can with the skills we got - I paraphrase, but I can do that. I know Paul was an atheist.

(07-11-2011 06:58 AM)Filox Wrote: as far as global warming is concerned, there are too many theories to put a finger on human influence alone. The sun flares, cosmic radiation, volcano eruptions, normal climate changes, there can be all sorts of non-human reasons. Still waiting for something that will convince me otherwise.

You and I addressed these myths several months ago in another thread (in fact I think it was the first time we butted heads and realized that even when we do we are still cool with each other) Problem is, I cited studies, I provided evidence that was obtained from scientists not laypeople, and still the argument resurfaces.

I suppose this is why some people get frustrated with me for saying what I have to say in a thread, then dropping out. So often I feel like I am repeating myself.

After all is said and done, it doesn't matter whether we are causing climate change, whether it's happening on it's own, or whether it is god! What matters is that we start to use the resources we have with our own future in mind. If we do that, then the effects we have on the planet will start to be positive instead of negative, and we will simply be left to adapt to a changing world in a natural way.

The energy put into arguing about what effect we have is a waste. We have an effect. Period. That is an undeniable truth. So stop worrying about what the effect is, and start putting your energies into making those effects positive.

This is the absolute fact of the matter right here. You can argue up and down all day about how much effect humans are having, but no one, but no one, would argue we are not having an effect.

And even if you argued that climate change and global warming was a completely natural phenomenon, that is not an argument to continue on with the status quo. Lets say you live by a flood plain and every year the floods washed away your home. Do you keep rebuilding your home the same way, or do you try to build it a few feet off the ground and above the flood level? Just because its a natural event does not justify inaction. The only one who would advocate inaction is a religious nut, who thinks god will fix it, or a bad economist, who thinks green jobs are a myth.

(07-11-2011 05:48 AM)bemore Wrote: Man made global warming...........do you believe it is real???

Id like to hear what people say before I put my evidence forward........what I will state first though (so you can kinda see where my loyalyts lie) is that ALL of the planets in our solar system are warming up.

So if anybody has any Evidence to support it (that we are the cause of planetary change) id like them to post it please

Of course man did this. Humans have never had a positive affect on Earth. If humans didnt exist Earth would be covered in forest really. There would be no gaping hole in the ozone layer, anything bad (except natural disastors) humans caused.

(07-11-2011 05:48 AM)bemore Wrote: Man made global warming...........do you believe it is real???

Id like to hear what people say before I put my evidence forward........what I will state first though (so you can kinda see where my loyalyts lie) is that ALL of the planets in our solar system are warming up.

So if anybody has any Evidence to support it (that we are the cause of planetary change) id like them to post it please

Of course man did this. Humans have never had a positive affect on Earth. If humans didnt exist Earth would be covered in forest really. There would be no gaping hole in the ozone layer, anything bad (except natural disastors) humans caused.

With respect can I ask how you come to this conclusion???

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

(07-11-2011 05:48 AM)bemore Wrote: Man made global warming...........do you believe it is real???

Id like to hear what people say before I put my evidence forward........what I will state first though (so you can kinda see where my loyalyts lie) is that ALL of the planets in our solar system are warming up.

So if anybody has any Evidence to support it (that we are the cause of planetary change) id like them to post it please

Of course man did this. Humans have never had a positive affect on Earth. If humans didnt exist Earth would be covered in forest really. There would be no gaping hole in the ozone layer, anything bad (except natural disastors) humans caused.

(07-11-2011 05:48 AM)bemore Wrote: Man made global warming...........do you believe it is real???

Id like to hear what people say before I put my evidence forward........what I will state first though (so you can kinda see where my loyalyts lie) is that ALL of the planets in our solar system are warming up.

So if anybody has any Evidence to support it (that we are the cause of planetary change) id like them to post it please

Of course man did this. Humans have never had a positive affect on Earth. If humans didnt exist Earth would be covered in forest really. There would be no gaping hole in the ozone layer, anything bad (except natural disastors) humans caused.

So when scientists can factor in such things as...Changes in the Earth's orbit, Changes in the sun's intensity, Volcanic eruptions (Aerosol and Carbon dioxide emissions) and more which TBH I cant be bothered to list.......... then COMMON SENSE would seem to prevail in my eyes.

Ill be straight with you and say just posting one graph and saying that is common sense is just pathetic.........please do some more research.

Also like I mentioned before it isnt just our planet that is going through changes.....it would appear that all of the planets in the solar system seem to be going through the same things that we are now.......I mention for further research Saturns moon Titan as one of many.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

I am going to throw my 2 cents back into this debate, as it appears to be getting rather heated (no pun intended, unless it was funny and then I did it on purpose).

Let's start off with that graph. We are certainly in a period of naturally elevated CO2 levels with our current concentration somewhere around 380 ppm. If (big if) we take a look at the overall trend in the data and match one of the previous set of wiggles to our current wiggle, then our CO2 concentrations should be on the decrease by now. This would imply that if there is a direct correlation with CO2 concentrations and temperature, that we should be entering a new ice age, but we are certainly not. SO, here is the issue, the rate. As far as we can tell, the rate at which CO2 is being released into the atmosphere today is much higher than anything we are seeing in this graph from the past ~600,000 years. That is a big problem if it is true.

Thought experiment: Let's start off with a pitcher of room temperature water and some sugar. If I slowly add in the sugar while mixing, it will dissolve easily. But, if I dump in the sugar too quickly, it will sink to the bottom with very little dissolving in, at first.

That is what is happening now, we think. The rate at which CO2 is being released is (potentially) to fast for the system to equilibrate itself. This would lead to an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which is the global warming issue. In turn, the CO2 from the atmosphere will begin to equilibrate with the oceans but this too is happening too quickly and is resulting in ocean acidification (carbonic acid).

This all supported by deeper time data as well. At points in Earth's history we have evidence (mostly C13/C12 data) that suggests CO2 concentrations that were 10x levels today (or more). Temperatures weren't drastically different during these periods and they certainly were not 10x higher. Even an increase in CO2 that happens slowly enough can be dealt with naturally. The oceans have a method of buffering themselves as long as CO2 is coming in at a slow enough rate. This ocean equilibration coupled with continental weathering reduces the net change in temperature.

So, the issue is not the absolute amount of CO2, but the rate at which it is being released. If we look back at events like the end-Permian mass extinction, we may get an idea for what can happen when CO2 is released too quickly. At the Permo-Triassic boundary there was a massive release of lava from the Siberian traps. This released massive amount of CO2 over a very narrow window of time and the result was the largest mass extinction in Earth's history (96% of marine species went extinct). What is happening now is not necessarily equal to that in amount or magnitude, but it is similar in its rate. And (as I have tried to demonstrate) that is the issue. Are humans the sole cause? Almost certainly no. But, are we a major contributor? That is much more likely.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley